My own private Vanity Fair: Positive proof that Kerry won the 2004 election!
My friend the election security expert finally finished his article proving conclusively that John Kerry won the November 2004 presidential election.
"I would like to have Vanity Fair publish it," he told me. "I like their style."
"But what about Counterpunch? Or BuzzFlash? Or The Nation? Do you KNOW anybody at Vanity Fair?"
"No. But I read the editor's book and I really liked it. I want HIM to publish my article." As if it were that easy. But, hey, that's what networking is for.
Does anybody out there in Internet-land know the editor of Vanity Fair? Perhaps you might be saying to yourself, "I know him! His mother is on my wife's bowling team...." If so, please let me know and I'll pass the information on to my friend.
FYI, my friend has a dyn-o-mite query letter describing the article's features. Here is the description:
1. Numbers cited in the article are the State of Florida official major party registration figures and vote totals by county or date derived from them.
2. While critics were watching the 15 counties that had Touchscreen voting, 36 of the 52 counties that had optical scanning equipment were heavily rigged, shifting so many votes to Bush that the victory of Kerry in the Touchscreen counties was more than offset.
3. A new equation, called the "Rig-Test" equation, is presented. It analyzes the "Official" returns and yields a calculation that shows whether there has been rigging and if so how much.
4. Because the analysis is numerical rather than verbal and assertive, it shows the number of transferred votes which clearly show that Kerry won Florida's 27 electorial votes and the Presidency.
5. The article ends with a recommendation for new legislation needed to change the security for computer-driven election equipment from zero to 100 percent.
But of course I had to throw my two cents in as well and write a query letter for him. (Between the two of us, we got all the bases covered and should be invited to Kerry's inagural ball.) Here is MY query letter. (His is is more accurate but I like mine better):
"I am a professor emeritus in mechanical engineering at a major American university. I also taught applied mathematics at Oxford, invented a voting machine, am a nationally-recognized expert on election security and hold over 100 patents.
"In November of 2004, I developed a formula, based on voter registration and voting data, to predict normally-occurring deviation patterns between voter registration and "official" tallied votes.
"Based on this formula, the standard pattern of voter deviation is approximately 30. Any deviation beyond this indicates vote rigging. In Liberty County, Florida, in 2004, the deviation was 1062 -- in favor of George Bush.
"By applying my formula to all 2004 Florida election data, I have conclusively proved that John Kerry won the Florida presidential election by at least 312,000 votes. I have written an article to this effect and would like to submit it to Vanity Fair."
PPS: You don't need a mathematics professor to tell which way the wind blows. Even without access to the above-described formula, anyone who can subtract the number of Republicans who voted in a precinct from the number of Democrats who voted can do this election math all by themselves: If a certain amount of Dems switch and vote Republican, that is understandable. But it's hecka unlikely that a whole bunch of them would stampede and vote Repub. If they were that unhappy with the Democratic platform and thought George Bush was that sexy (eeee-uuu), wouldn't they have just changed their party registration in the first place?
So all you gotta do is look at the vast numbers of precincts and counties across America where there were massive vote changes from Dem to Repub (er, how come it's always the Dems who change votes? Isn't that statistically funky?) and voila! Election rigging is a BIG possibility.